[2026:RJ-JP:10012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1930/2007 National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Station Road, Jhunjhunu, Through Manager ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Amar Kanwar W/o Late Shri Mohan Singh, R/o Ghot Juni, Post Manglod Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur 2. Shatiman Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh, R/o Goth Juni aged 7 years Minor through Mother Smt. Amar Kanwar. 3. Jitendra Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh, aged 5 years Minor Through Mother Smt. Amar Kanwar 4. Prabhu Singh S/ Late Peerdan Singh, R/o Goth Juni, Post Manglod, Tehsil Jayal, Distt. Nagaur 5. Revat Ram S/o Mohan Ram, R/o Jhadisara, Tehsil Nagaur, Distt. Nagaur (Tractor Driver RJ-18-RA-0262) 6. Prakash S/o Hanuman Nath Yogi, R/o Hameeri Kalan, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Registered Tractor Owner RJ-18-RA-0262) 7. Payre Lal S/o Gopal Nath Yagi, R/o Hameeri Kalan, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu (Registered Tractor Owner RJ-18- RA-0262). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.L. Sharma Mr. Rajesh Kumar for Mr. Indresh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment 09/03/2026 1. The appellant-National Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ for short) challenging the [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (2 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] award dated 06.01.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Addl. & District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3), Jhunjhunu in Accident Claim Case No.308/2006 titled as Smt. Amar Kanwar & Anr. Vs. Revat Ram & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the claim of Rs.3,73,000/- in favour of the respondents-claimants herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. V.P. Mathur submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious mistake in passing the impugned award in favour of the respondents- claimants in disregard of the fact that the driver was not having the requisite driving license and further the tractor was used for commercial purpose. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition in respect of an accident which occurred on 28.11.2025 in which one Revat Ram S/o Mohan Ram Jat died for which an FIR bearing No.227/2005 was registered for the offences under Section 279 read with Section 304A IPC. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal for deciding the claim petition framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k iz'uxr okgu la[;k vkj-ts-18 vkj-,-0262 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 jsorjke ds }kjk fnukad 28-11-05 dks eksM+k igkM+ >qU>quw ds ikl mDr okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa izR;{k ifj.kkeLo:i eksgu flag dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks xbZ \ 2- vk;k mDr okgupkyd rc mDr okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k 2 o 3 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk] tks okgu fof/kd o izHkkoh :i ls chfer Fkk \ [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (3 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] 3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 4 chek daiuh }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku ds izkjafHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds en~nsutj chek daiuh vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrh gS] ugha rks bldk D;k izHkko gS \ 4- vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos@nkok esa vafdr iz'uxr jkf'k o ml ij C;kt ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;lEer jkf'k ik ldrk gS] ;fn gka] rks dkSu dkSu nkosnkj fdruh fdruh jkf'k fdl fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ik ldrs gSa rFkk fdl rjg lank; fd;k tkosxk \ 5- vuqrks"kA” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments with regard to issue No.3 and the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that driver of the vehicle was not having the required driving license and further the tractor was registered for agriculture purpose, whereas it was used for commercial purpose for transporting the goods. In view thereof, he prayed that in absence of the required driving license and the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the learned Tribunal committed a serious mistake while deciding the issue No.3 in favour of the respondents-claimants and wrongly passed the award. He further submitted that even in case the respondents-claimants are held entitled for the compensation, the Insurance Company be allowed to have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel Mr. P.L. Sharma & Mr. Rajesh Kumar for Indresh Sharma appeared on behalf of the respondents-claimants strongly opposed the submissions and submitted that as per the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 06.01.2007, the [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (4 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] vehicle was properly insured and the driver was having the required driving license and further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Vs. Rambha Devi and Ors.1, examined the issue of required license of driving the tractor including the issue of permissible weight of the vehicle i.e. not exceeding 7,500 kg.. 6. In view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance (supra), learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the present appeal being devoid of merits and the same is deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. This Court, in view of the specific arguments as raised by learned counsel for the appellant, confining his arguments in respect of issue No.3, noted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.3 with regard to the objection regarding the required driving license and use of vehicle for commercial purpose, recorded the reasoned findings. 9. Learned Tribunal recorded the following findings while deciding the issue No.3, which reads as under:- “blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd ekeyk >wBk ugha cuk;k x;k gSA VsªDVj ykbV eksVj Oghdy dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkar VsDl ds laca/k esa gksus ds dkj.k os bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k] bl ekeys ij pLik ugha gksrs gSaA nq?kZVuk lkoZtfud jkLrs dh gS ftldk mYys[k uD'kk ekSdk esa gSA ekeyk lgh o lR; gS vkSj chek 1. (2025) 3 SCC 95 [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (5 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] daiuh dh ftEesnkjh curh gSA chek daiuh us vius rdkZas ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lqn`<+ lk{; is'k ugha dh gS o rduhdh ,srjkt ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa gekjs le{k fuEufyf[kr U;k;n`"Vkar voyksdukFkZ izLrqr fd,%& 1- 2006 vkj-,-vkj- ist 548¼jkt0½ j?kqifr cuke dyqvk ,oa vU; 2- 2006 vkj-,-vkj- ist 508¼jkt0½ vksfj,UVy ba';ksjsal daiuh ,oa vU; cuke gqDeflag ,oa vU; 9- geus mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkarksa dk llEeku voyksdu fd;kA gLrxr ekeys esa nq?kZVukLFky vke dPpk jkLrk gS tks uD'kk ekSdk izn'kZ 5 esa ^^,Dl^^ LFkku ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] bl dkj.k bls lkoZtfud LFkku gh ekuk tkosxkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ chek daiuh ds rdZ esa dksbZ cy izrhr ugha gksrk gSA xokg j?kqohj flag ds c;ku ds vuqlkj nq?kZVukLFky dk'kh ikaMs dh yht ds ikl gS] vr% ,srjkt mi;qDr ugha gSA bl ekeys esa pkyd ds ikl Mªkbfoax ykblsal gYds eksVj okgu dk gS tks izn'kZ 12 is'k fd;k x;k gSA ;g ykbZlsal fnukad 25- 9-97 ls 30-04-2013 rd oS/k gSA izn'kZ 13 LokfeRo ds iathd`r izek.ki= esa VsªDVj dk ynku jfgr otu 1835 fdyksxzke vafdr gS bl dkj.k eksVj Oghdy ,DV 1988 dh /kkjk 2¼21½ esa ykbZV eksVj Oghdy dh ifjHkk"kk ds vUrxZr VsªDVj] dkj] jksM jksyj dk ynku jfgr otu 7500 fdyksxzke ls vf/kd ugha gksrk gS] blls Li"V gS fd VsªDVj dk ynku jfgr otu 1835 fdyksxzke gh gS bl dkj.k ;g ykbZV eksVj Oghdy gS] ftldk pkyd ds ikl oS/k pkyd vuqKki= FkkA chek iksyhlh izn'kZ la[;k 1 esa [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (6 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] rks ,sls okgu dks yuZj ykblsal okyk O;fDr Hkh pyk ldus dk izko/kku gSA vUos"k.k ds nkSjku iqfyl }kjk tks VsªDVj tfj, QnZ izn'kZ 8 tIr fd;k x;k Fkk og fcuk Vªksyh dk gS] gkykafd chek iksyhlh esa Vªksyh dk Hkh izko/kkku fd;k gqvk gSA bl laca/k esa chek dEiuh us dksbZ Bksl lk{; is'k ugha dh gS] ,slh voLFkk esa chek daiuh }kjk mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ka mi;qDr ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k dk ;g rdZ mi;qDr izrhr gksrk gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk tks U;k;n`"Vkar gekjs le{k vizkFkhZ chek daiuh dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k gS og dsoy VsDl ds ekeys ls lacaf/kr Fkk tks gekjs fouez er esa Hkh bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa p'ik ugha gksrk gSA Qyr% ;g rudh vizkFkhZ la[;k 4 chek daiuh ds fo:) fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA” 10. In view of the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the claim of the respondent-claimants herein and the objection as raised by the appellant in the present appeal regarding the lack of required license to drive the vehicle and use of tractor for commercial purpose is frivolousness and baseless and the findings are reasoned, therefore deserves no interference. Even otherwise, the issue regarding the requirement of license for driving the tractor below weight of 7,500 kg examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance (supra). Relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:- “11. From the above submissions, the following specific issues fall for our consideration:- (i) Whether a driver holding an LMV license (for ve- hicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (7 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] 7,500 kgs.) as per Section 10(2)(d), which speci- fies ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization un- der Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) Whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ overrides the definition of LMV in Section 2(21) of MV Act? Is the definition of LMV contained in Section 2(21) of MV Act unre- lated to the licensing framework under the MV Act and the MV Rules; (iii) Whether the additional eligibility criteria pre- scribed in the MV Act and MV Rules for ‘transport vehicles’ would apply to those who are desirous of driving vehicles weighing below 7,500 kgs and have obtained a license for LMV class under Sec- tion 10(2)(d) of the MV Act; (iv) What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 which substituted four classes under clauses (e) to (h) in Section 10 with a single class of ‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e)?” The relevant paragraph of the judgment, wherein the Court has recorded the conclusion while answering the reference, is reproduced as under:- “125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a ‘Trans- port Vehicle’, if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court. 126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the defi- nition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act ex- [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (8 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] plicitly provides what a ‘Transport Vehicle’ ‘means’. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driv- ing license for a ‘Transport Vehicle’ is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on ‘Transport Vehicle’ in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the ‘medium’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure. 127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insur- ance companies from taking a technical plea to de- feat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ class. 128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less ve- hicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the In- dian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we were informed by the Learned At- torney General that a legislative exercise is under- way, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with nec- essary corrective measures. 129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce ‘transport vehicle’ as a separate class could not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give rise to a situation in which Sri (our hy- pothetical character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the rigorous training rel- evant only for a multisport like Triathlon, which re- quires a much higher degree of endurance and ath- leticism. The effort therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains practical and workable. 130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal – regardless of whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport” cate- gory, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (9 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man’s driver Sri, with LMV li- cense, can also drive a “Transport Vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a ‘Transport Vehicle’, is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility crite- ria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle (‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehi- cle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger ve- hicle’), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally oper- ating “Transport vehicles” (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive re- sponsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such har- monious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifi- cally for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a spe- cific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the defini- tion of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. [2026:RJ-JP:10012] (10 of 10) [CMA-1930/2007] (III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehi- cle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as ex- plained by us in this judgment. In the ab- sence of any obtrusive omission, the de- cision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judg- ment.” 11. In terms of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance (supra) and further considering the findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No.3, this Court noted that no trolley was fitted to the tractor and further owner of the vehicle was having the required driving license and the required insurance policy of the vehicle. 12. This Court in view of the above noted facts and considering the reasoned findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal finds no perversity in the impugned award as passed by the learned Tribunal. 13. In view thereof, this Court finds no merits in the appeal as preferred by the National Insurance Company. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Monika/24